In Game Name:
JdawgerWhat part of EcoCityCraft is this suggestion for:
Network WideShort title for your suggestion:
Rule Changes Regarding Pvt. Chest WarsWhat are you suggesting:
Adding rules to regulate privately hosted chest wars (otherwise known as storage wars, locker wars, or Mine Wars) to limit their potential scamming potential and ease community hostility towards people who do host (to stop the witch hunts/accusions of scamming on players who do host, whether it is a legit chest wars or not).Why is this a good addition for EcoCityCraft?:
@Pab_Jr explained it really well below. This suggestion is to require that each chest of a given chest war have a sign on or next to it stating a minimum value of what's in the chest (or if the chest war is posted on the fourms, post a minimum value of each chest there as well). Basically, posting the minimum amount that someone will get from that chest if they win, even if the worth of the chest is higher. This would need to be done with each chest that is being auctioned, so if a chest wars has three different chests up for bidding, there would need to be three signs explaining the minimum value.
Over the years, there have been many chest wars, dating back to the near start of the server. While there are ones that are amazing, there are a good number of ones that either seem like a major cash grab or a scam to some people (or in some cases when people actually buy a chest, an actual scam that is technically legal in our rules). Rules regarding chest wars have always been a major gray area, meaning there are many people who take advantage of this system to get some easy money for otherwise worthless items, or impose ridiculous starting bids on a chest that nobody but the owner of the chest can see. An example of this happened just before old main became archive. There was someone who hosted a chest wars of five chests, started the bid at 10k each, had all five chests won by players just for them to learn that all that was in there were crappy iron tools and dirt blocks, all of which were worth well under the staring bid; staff could not punish the host. Plus, there have been examples of people switching out the chest's contents to reflect on the person who won (meaning players have made a chest crappier after someone bought it because the chest owner didn't like them).Other information:
I'm using Mine Wars as a better example of good chest wars not because they are run by the staff team more often than not, but because of the way they are regulated. Each chest has a basic breakdown of value, stating the least of what you can win (like the whole 'chest is valued at at least 100k' or 'you are guaranteed a star tool in one of the chests in addition to 100k'). This gives people who want to bid on a chest a basic understanding of the lowest value while still holding the surprise of winning a chest.
The rule changes regarding chest wars won't magically stop people who use chest wars as a major money grab/scam nor magically change the community's hostility towards players who host private chest wars, but I feel like this would be a great first step towards making these private chest wars more fair for all parties. Chest Wars, if done right and fair, is a very fun event for the community, not to mention a basic staple for ECC. Just like the actual biding of real world storage lockers (usually), the people biding can at least look into the unit and see some potential items, but not know exactly what is in it; they can't touch anything inside or walk into it unless they won the bid, but can see the surface layer of items. This way I suggested tries to be just like that: a happy medium from suggestive chests and straight up giving away the exact information.
Like I said earlier, this isn't going to change any hostility anyone has towards private chest wars nor stop anyone who hosts it for making a profit, but it will hopefully ease all this tension when someone does host one while also stopping people who could potentially use this event as a way to "scam" bidders.Plugin or custom addition:
Basically, this suggestion is in the fallout with yet another heated argument on the fourms regarding a recent chest wars, making this one the third one out of four, with that one that didn't have a heated argument being Mine Wars.
One suggestion per form:
I Understand.
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.
Thread Tools
Thread Tools
-
Also, if there is rules regarding chest wars that are similar to or exactly like the ones I am suggesting, I couldn't find them in the wiki.
-
welikeike22 Dean MartinBuilder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade
-1
This suggestion massively disenfranchises the user base from running games and instead gives most of the power to what you call "staff-sponsored events", which Minewars is really only in special occasions. The fact that we have so many staff members participating is coincidence. Minewars would continue whether or not it was "server sponsored" or "staff sponsored"; we run off of the name that I and my other co-runners have built for the institution over the last 8 years, but even still, this rule would require we substantially change the way we operate if we lost that "staff sponsorship" by virtue of our staff and community contributors resigning/being demoted for unrelated reasons.
The only rule I would support would be something along the lines of "If you say all lockers have a minimum value of [XYZ], that MUST be the case."
(When I founded Minewars in 2012, I knew I would have a substantial base of competition just because the idea, and the possibility of profit, would attract anyone and everyone imaginable. Even though, for my own sake and the sake of my locker builders, I should want this regulation because it hurts everyone else's chances of starting up something new, I don't want that to happen.)-
Like x 1 - List
-
-
-
I'm not sure how requiring vague statements regarding the chests actually improves these events other than allowing us to say we have rules for them.
Requiring a value estimate per chest makes these events a non-starter. The other sample statements are so incredibly vague that it would be completely subjective as to whether they were following the rules. I'm sure everyone agrees that "There are some items in this chest" is too vague of a statement that's allowed. So where's the line? Ultimately this is a rule that doesn't affect the events themselves but rather regulating the verbiage of the advertising for them.-
Agree x 1 - List
-
-
-
Alrighty,
So I’m going to put my input in seeing as I have built minewars lockers, ran the event, hosted it etc along with Ike and Stolio.
I can get behind making a obvious statement of each locker has a minimum value of XXX, or in minewars case “Minimum value of 100k and one lucky chest has a star tool in it”
But being any more specific with items ruins the surprise of the event, part of bidding on the locker is getting the rush of having no clue what you are going to get.
Seeing as you mentioned casinos I’ll hit that seeing as I help run cove. The difference between a casino and an event such as minewars is a casino you are expected to know your odds, or possible payouts, the rush in a casino is hoping for that biggest prize, which minewars runs on a different system.
I guess what I am saying here is sure set a minimum value for all lockers and advertise that, that can be put in the rules, but any further regulation seems unnecessary imo.-
Winner x 2 -
Agree x 1 - List
-
-
-
-
ClarinetPhoenix She does what she wants.Owner Events Manager ECC Sponsor Mayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ IX ⭐ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade Wiki Leader
We're not interested in creating specific rules for what is essentially an event run on trust and honor.
I've yet to see anyone bid on lockers without knowing the potential minimum, it comes with the territory to announce some sort of minimum(value/bid) or potential items in the chests to give an idea what the users some ball-park idea of potential value. Generally events where the host is intentionally hiding and obscuring details or requiring a ridiculous minimum bid isn't trusted and the event falls through.
Any malicious events run that do end up scamming users(such as lying about the minimum, lying about the contents) falls under the current scamming rules.-
Informative x 1 - List
-
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.